The Union responded on December 18, 2012, simply indicating that it declined to pursuethe matter further.15.
The claimant then urged the Union once again on or about January 7, 2013 to reconsider its inaction and to provide an explanation for its inaction.16.
The claimant received no response.17.
In January 2013, the claimant informed his chain of command and Union that he had not been awarded the compensation prescribed in the arbitration decision.18.
The Union was provided an update of this situation on March 7, 2013. To date, the Union
has failed to act to rectify the City’s noncompliance.
On March 28, 2013, the claimant informed the City that it had failed to providecompensation due for his a
ctive duty National Guard service, in violation of the City’s
Shortly thereafter, the claimant informed the Union about the City’s failure to
compensate him for his active duty service. The Union declined to act.21.
The City again failed to provide compensation due the claimant for his May 2013 National Guard active duty service.22.
On or about May 29, 2013, the Union was again informed of the failures by the City toact in accordance with its ordinances and the arbitration decision.23.
On June 21, 2013, the claimant informed the Union that the City had yet to respond to the
claimant’s request to be paid the appropriate back pay per the arbitrator’s award and to be
compensated for his work in the National Guard per City ordinance.24.
To date, the Union has failed to respond.